Rosemary Radford Ruether was a pioneering feminist theologian of the “Second Wave” and is among the most foundational feminist thinkers in the field. While Second-Wave feminists held a wide variety of views on gender, a major point of convergence was the view that gender – especially in terms of so-called masculine and feminine traits – is to some degree socially constructed.[1] Contrasting with gender is biological sex, which is thought to be given by the body itself. Like others in this group, Ruether’s view assumes the stability of biological sex and emphasizes that gender – in terms of qualities of the psyche and role differentiation - involves social construction.[2] This paper will argue that Ruether’s theology struggles to separate sex from gender, but by considering the nuances biological studies on sex and gender reveal, Ruether’s emphasis on the importance of sexed embodiment can be maintained while avoiding a strict female-feminine/male-masculine binary and being inclusive of transgender embodiment. This has the effect of bringing subtlety to her employment of sex and gender in conceptualizing the divine.
One of the most significant ways Ruether approaches the topic of sex/gender is by drawing on ancient Near Eastern myths. She critiques the change that takes place in the shift from Babylonian and Canaanite theology – in which there is a harmonious pairing of a male and a female god within the cosmos – to Jewish theology, which places God above creation: “Nature is no longer a womb within which Gods and humans gestate…The Divine exists beyond it, symbolized as a combination of male seminal and cultural power (word-act) that shapes it from above.”[3] Ruether gives symbolic value to reproductive biology and, in doing so, identifies gendered feminine and masculine roles: the feminine womb symbolizes immanent action while seminal masculine and cultural power symbolizes action from a transcendent position. Yet, Ruether concludes that unlike the weighty symbolic and gendered significance of sexual reproduction of the Ancient Near Eastern gods, there is only mutually complementing roles between human males and females with regard to “reproductive role specialization,” (i.e. Males and females have different biological functions in sexual reproduction.). For Ruether, “there is no valid biological basis for labeling certain psychic qualities…‘masculine’ and others…‘feminine.’”[4] This demonstrates the incongruity between her understanding of gendered ways of acting/thinking in her discussion of humans vs. her gendered symbolic involving Ancient Near Eastern gods.
Ruether wants to ensure that she does not reinforce gender stereotypes, which is likely why she analyzes the sex-gender relationship differently in different contexts. Yet, if her argument is going to be compelling, there needs to be consistency in her view of this relationship.
This paper will recount some relevant biological studies and argue that the complexity they contribute to the sex-gender relationship can push against those who might use discourse about the body to reinforce gender roles. Biological studies indicate that bodily matter influences gender.[5] However, they also allow us to see that there are aspects of the body that are extraordinarily complicated, unclear, and/or are matters of debate among scientists,[6] which gestures toward the body’s complex materiality. The body’s relation to gender is likely related to a phenomenon known as “neuroplasticity”, which refers to the brain’s ability to change its neural networks to an (as yet) unknown degree based upon ongoing human experience.[7] Biological data suggest that, if the divine is going to be symbolized through sexed/gendered qualities, these qualities should be figured as a “scatter plot” of female-typical and male-typical traits, neither abstracting from bodily influence nor essentializing male and female stereotypes.
Finally, the paper will position a version of Ruether’s view, modified by biological studies, in the context of two other contrasting contemporary theological perspectives in order to highlight the virtues of this modified view. One of these two contrasting perspectives is that of Marcella Althaus-Reid (drawing on Judith Butler’s thought), who emphasizes the social construction of sex and gender.[8] Another is that of Pope John Paul II, who holds that sex and gender are bothgiven by the body itself.[9] The advantage of Ruether’s view, modified in light of biological studies, is that it is a middle road between these two extremes; she recognizes sex differences while also resisting the collapsing of sex into gender.
------
[1] See Rosemarie Tong, Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction, 3rd ed. (Boulder Colo: Westview Press, 2009), 52-8.
[2] Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology, 10th anniversary edition (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993), 111.
[3] Ibid., 76-7.
[4] Ibid., 111.
[5] Legato, “The Sexual Brain,” in The Plasticity of Sex, ed. Marianne J. Legato (London; San Diego, CA: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier, 2020): 44-5. Biologist Marianne Legato argues for the connection between gender and sex in the brain but also that women and men have overlap in the brain when it comes to gender and sex.
[6] For example, some scientists are skeptical of the conclusions on male/female sex differences in the brain. See Lise Eliot et al., “Dump the ‘Dimorphism’: Comprehensive Synthesis of Human Brain Studies Reveals Few Male-Female Differences beyond Size,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 125 (June 2021): 689-90. Yet, other scientists are convinced of this by the data. See Legato, “The Sexual Brain”, in Plasticity, 38-40.
[7] Lise Eliot, Adnan Ahmed, Hiba Khan, and Julie Patel. “Dump the ‘Dimorphism’: Comprehensive Synthesis of Human Brain Studies Reveals Few Male-Female Differences beyond Size.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 125 (June 2021): 667–97.
[8] See Marcella Althaus-Reid, Indecent Theology: Theological Perversions in Sex, Gender and Politics (London: Routledge, 2010), 6, 53.
[9] See John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, Translated by Michael Waldstein, Second Printing edition (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 2006), talk 9, #1; See John Grabowski, Unraveling Gender: The Battle over Sexual Difference (Gastonia, North Carolina: TAN, 2022), chapter 6.